NASA NTRS · 20060043475
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Chase, James P., Herrell, Linda, Smith, Jeffrey L. Smith. 2005-06-01. Flight Options Analysis Tool (FLOAT). https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20060043475
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
A concept of an aero-assisted pre-stage is proposed, which enables launch of both ballistic and aero-assisted launch vehicles from conventional runways. The pre-stage can be implemented as a delta-wing with a suitable undercarriage, which is mated with the launch vehicle, so that their flight directions are coaligned. The ample wing area of the pre-stage combined with the thrust of the launch vehicle ensure prompt roll-out and take-off of the stack at airspeeds typical for a conventional jet airliner. The launch vehicle is separated from the pre-stage as soon as safe altitude is achieved, and the desired ascent trajectory is reached. Nominally, the pre-stage is non-powered. As an option, to save the propellant of the launch vehicle, the pre-stage may have its own short-burn propulsion system, whereas the propulsion system of the launch vehicle is activated at the separation point. A general non-dimensional analysis of performance of the pre-stage from roll-out to separation is carried out and applications to existing ballistic launch vehicle and hypothetical aero-assisted vehicles (spaceplanes) are considered.
Small-satellite rideshare capabilities and opportunities for low-cost access to space have been evolving over the past 10 years. Small space launch vehicle technology is rapidly being developed and demonstrated, including the Minotaur series and the Space X Falcon, among others, along with the lower cost launch facilities at Alaska's Kodiak Launch Complex, NASA's Wallops Flight Facility, and the Reagan Test Site in the Pacific. Demonstrated capabilities for the launch of multiple payloads have increased (and continue to increase) significantly. This will allow more efficient and cost-effective use of the various launch opportunities, including utilizing the excess capacity of the emerging Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)-based missions. The definition of standardized interfaces and processes, along with various user guides and payload implementation plans, has been developed and continues to be refined. Top-level agency policies for the support of low-cost access to space for small experimental payloads, such as the DoD policy structure on auxiliary payloads, have been defined and provide the basis for the continued refinement and implementation of these evolving technologies. Most importantly, the coordination and cooperative interfaces between the various stakeholders continues to evolve. The degree of this coordination and technical interchange is demonstrated by the wide stakeholder participation at the recent 2008 Small Payload Rideshare Workshop, held at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility. This annual workshop has been the major platform for coordination and technical interchange within the rideshare community and with the various sponsoring agencies. These developments have provided the foundation for a robust low-cost small payload rideshare capability. However, the continued evolution, sustainment, and utilization of these capabilities will require continued stakeholder recognition, support, and nourishing. Ongoing, coordinated effort, partnering, and support between stakeholders is essential to acquire the improved organizational processes and efficiencies required to meet the needs of the growing small payload community for low-cost access to space. Further, a mix of capabilities developed within the space community for Operationally Responsive Space, an international committee investigating space systems cross-compatibility, and an industry-based organization seeking small satellite "standardization" all work toward a new paradigm: sharing or leveraging resources amongst multiple users. The challenge: where are those users, and what is the best way to leverage them? What is leveraged-mass, power, cost-sharing? And how does one sort through these options? What policies may prevent the use of some options? Who are the "other users" that might share or leverage capabilities? This paper presents a systematic look at both the users and the launch options, and suggests a way forward.
Space technology experiments and validation missions share a common dilemma with the aerospace industry in general: the high cost of access to space. Whether the experiment is a so-called university cubesat, a university measurement experiment, or a NASA New Millennium Program (NMP) technology validation mission, the access to space option can be scaled appropriately for the particular constraints. A cubesat might fly as one of a number of cubesats that negotiate a flight on an experimental vehicle. A university experiment might do the same. A NASA flight validation might partner with an Air Force experimental mission.